There's this block of text that is overlapping posts about halfway down the page.
It's not part of a post, because it was overlapping two different posts...
And it looks like it wants to be here for a long time, since it's not moving with the posts it's overlapping!
I don't know what I did...
UPDATE: The nice person that wordpress.org figured it out! the text from the article that I linked to had html coding in it that made the text "absolute" in position...
Proposal 06-3
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 – AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES
Public Act 160 of 2004 would:
Watch this. (Anti 3)
And here is a "pro" article...
I'll probably vote "no" just because I like the birds.
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
(Thoughts on this one? One of the things that it would ban is same-sex grade and high schools)
HERE is what I need to be prepared for...there are only 50 questions on the test, but I don't know what they'll be...
Systems:
Study guide is also the SPO (take a peek below the fold...) ...continue reading
PROPOSAL 06-1
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
• Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
• Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
• Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.
Should this proposal be adopted?
The Detroit Free Press says :
It would protect forever the license and user fees people pay for activities such as fishing, hunting, camping and snowmobiling to make sure the money is used only for recreation and conservation.
The measure would convert 13 existing accounts under the Department of Natural Resources into three constitutionally protected, raid-proof funds. In his last term, Gov. John Engler's administration took $7.8 million from the Waterways Fund to balance the state budget. The proposal is to prevent that from happening again.
As a camper, I know that one of my favorite state campgrounds has doubled their camping fee - this year. And that the money I pay for camping and entrance fees are being used elsewhere.
Also, a few years ago one of our governers raided the school employee's pension fund and ended his term with a balanced budget...this should not happen.
If funds are supposed to be protected, they should be protected. I think I'll vote yes on this one.
The directions say to identify "a, b and c"...
I'm so bad I can't even FIND the "c"
From jswranch, is a comment on this post that begins with a statement "...before we can begin to look at something like annulments, we have to understand marriage is indissolveable. If it is dissolveable, the whole annulment thing is bunk. Is marriage dissolveable?"
I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.
But does this mean that it cannot be dissolved? What does the Bible say?
First, what is a covenant? Strong's says, b@riyth {ber-eeth'},
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
..a) between men
....treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
....constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
....agreement, pledge (man to man)
....alliance (of friendship)
....alliance (of marriage)
..b)between God and man
....alliance (of friendship)
....covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2)(phrases)
..a) covenant making
..b) covenant keeping
..c) covenant violation
Covenants are not meant to be broken, but can they be?
Between men (or - in the case of marriage - a man and a woman) can treaties be broken, or agreements between monarchs and subjects? Obviously, treaties are broken nearly every day. Between humans, covenants can be broken.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
If we take the stand that marriage covenants cannot be broken, then divorce cannot happen. Or, at the very least, breaking a covenant in order to divorce would be a sin and that puts God in the difficult position of regulating (and not prohibiting) sin (Search the Levitical Law). Levitical priests were the only men who were prohibited from marrying divorced women, and they were also prohibited from marrying widows.
We know that covenants have terms.
Can a Covenant be broken? Can a divorce (for Biblical cause) validly break a covenant?
God seemed to say so. Jeremiah 3:6-8
The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, 'After she has done all this she will return to me,' but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.
God sent Israel away (for the cause of adultery) with a writ of divorce. This is a clear confirmation that sexual sin within a covenant is cause for a divorce.
What does this do to the covenant?
From Hebrews 8:6-7
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Verse 13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Note: In this passage, the author writes (verses 8-9):
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
God will make a NEW covenant with Israel and Judah - IT IS NOT THE SAME COVENANT, THE OLD ONE WAS BROKEN.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
Biblically, we cannot say that a covenant cannot be broken, because God Himself has demonstrated that covenant can be broken.
Biblically, with God as the model, God Himself has demonstrated that there is Biblical cause to break a marriage covenant - because God Himself has done it.
(NOTE: Before the next accusation comes, this does not mean that I think they should be; I do not. Repeat: I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, to be a life-long covenantal arrangement.)
This is Biblical and I have used Scripture as a foundation for my belief.
Merriam-Webster online says:
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
(marriage: b: the mutual relation of married persons"
Strongs says:
(In the Old Testament, `ownah {o-naw'}.
1) cohabitation, conjugal rights
(In the New Testament, gamos {gam'-os}
1) a wedding or marriage festival, a wedding banquet, a wedding feast
2) marriage, matrimony
What are the Biblical requirements for considering oneself to be "married"? (What does the Bible say?)
1) Marriage is God's invention
Genesis 2:18 "Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."
2) Marriage means to leave and hold fast
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
3) Marriage is a covenant - and God is the witness.
Malachi 2:14 "But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant."
4) Marriage is a relationship that is recognized and/or regulated by law.
Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities." Unless we have a real reason to believe that the state is asking us to sin by following the law in order to be married, we must obey the laws of the land.
5) Marriage is a reflection of God and His people. In the Old Testament, the people were Israel, in the New Testament, it is the church. As Paul wrote, this is a mystery.
What do you have to DO to be "married"?
Do you need to have a ceremony? No - the Bible never says that there must be a ceremony in order to be married in the eyes of God. Marriage is an life-long agreement between a man and a woman.
Do you need to be married by a minister? No - the Bible never says that.
Does marriage belong to the church? No - God created marriage to be a life-long agreement between a man and a woman and virtually all societies have had marriages of one sort or another. The Bible does not say that marriage belongs to the church.
What about traditions?
They are traditions - and some very nice ones, too. But they are only traditions. The wedding traditions of the ancient world were very different from our traditions today. But their marriages were just as much marriages then as ours are today. Nearly every society marks the beginning of a marriage with a ceremony or rite, but it is not necessary, except to our human minds.
God and His Word clearly tell us that marriage is designed to be for life. A man and a woman in a covenantal arrangement, with God as the witness.
The ESV
Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.
The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.
The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.
In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.
My daughter and I took a beginning Greek class and this was the one that the instructor told us was most faithful to the ancient text...
I have to deal with rosacea in my life. I have discovered what my triggers are and how to minimize it, but not how to really control it.
Until now (I think).
I recently found an article on this little critter that lives in your hair follicles. What I did find was a website that urges natural treatments instead of pharmaceuticals . That website recommended "Grandpa's Pine Tar Soap"
I have not had a flareup in a month.
This concludes the advertisement....
😉
(oh yes...tonight is my first night with a CPAP)